Dear piano experts,

I have a student who has just taken her Grade 6 piano exam and she is now thinking of taking up Grade 8 next year (Oct 2006). She has taken Grade 2, 4 and 6 in the last 4 years and she got merit in Grade 2 and distinction in Grade 4. She's 11 this year and an A+ student in school. She's very eager in taking it up. I was wondering if it would be a rush for her to try to get through the whole syllabus of Grade 8 in one year. Has anyone done that before? I mean skipping grades... If yes, any suggestions for choosing the pieces in each section? I mean which ones are popular among those who have taken the 2005 - 2006 Grade 8 piano exam... Please advise, thanks!

I'm skipping grade 7......but there will have been a gap of at least 9 years Sorry. Not helpful. There have been lots of debates on this subject - try a search. I personally wouldn't rush through, she's only 11 so there's plenty of time to learn lots of music and do grade 8 later. Just my humble opinion.

Out of interest, I'm currently working on the Scarlatti, the Mozart and the CPE Bach. I'm not intending entering this session, and I haven't attempted any of the C list pieces because I don't really like any of the ones in the purple book on first playing.

I would second Suzy Mac if there's no rush then don't rush. A student will be a far better pianist if they have experence of playing lots of repertoire of an appropriate level rather than studying for exams all of the time. If it's honestly going to take the student a year just preparing three pieces and the other exam requirements and nothing else then I don't think that the student is really ready to tackle the exam yet; the time could be much more productively spent imporving her playing rather than doing exams for all or most of the time. If she's just taken her last exam she really needs to take the time to play other repertoire now and improve from grade 6 standard to grade 8 standard before embarking on the grade 8 exam preparation itself.

With the exam approach it's very worrying to think of getting students who can only play three pieces at the level they're playing at; and even more worrying who have got to grade 8 having only ever played 24 pieces. Grade 8 should mean that one can generally tackle repertoire around that level (and do all the other things required for the grade) rather than one has focussed on three pieces and that's it. I'm not accusing you of this here, merely pointing out that you need to be aware of this with her if she's a keen exam taker. To quote the AB in their advice to parents:



At 11 there's no rush, turn her into a great pianist, rather than 'just another person who has grade 8'. I'm not knocking grade 8 it's a real achievement if one goes about it the right way . I find that even just talking on the internet one can easily spot the experienced pianists and the 'just another grade 8 people' the clue is usually in the fact that people who have been playing for three years have grade 8! I've even spoken to someone on here who is taking grade 8 piano but can honestly, by their own admission, barely read music....

I reply only to back up everything said by SuzyMac and AP.

Let the exams be a by-product of the piano study, not the central issue in them.

Steve

Thanks everyone for your great advice. I will have a chat with her and her mum again. The motivation behind this strong urge in taking up Grade 8 comes from a classmate of hers who has just recently taken the Grade 8 piano exam. Plus, she has a classmate who has already taken the Dip of ABRSM. What an immense influence! Thanks again guys!

At 11?!?!?!

I guess her classmate ( the one who has taken the Dip of ABRSM) took it before the age of 11. What I heard from her about this classmate of hers was a talented one. I also know one from my school who has also taken the Dip of ABRSM in teaching when she was in her fifth grade. Amazing, isn't it? There are such talented children in this world. After all, what's the point of rushing through such high levels? Well, peer pressure has some to blame on, I reckon.

One of my friends who is 17 has taken LRSM piano performance AND LRSM violin performance. He's got the qualifications which are equal to two BMus degree with honours......

However, he is not going to read music at university.....

Matthew

How old are students in fifth grade in your part of the world? According to the syllabus you have to be 18 to take DipABRSM!!

Not the performance one, only the teaching one.

Jm-hamilton, I have mentioned earlier that she got the DipABRSM in teaching, not performance. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Well, I have asked her if she wanted to be a professional musician someday and she said, "No way!!!" She enjoys playing the violin but not for a living. She wants to be a pop star. Oh dear!

It seems worrying that there's a prevaling attitude coming along prodominently in Hong Kong, but not entirely absent in the UK, that what's important is what qualifications people have (and this pushes people to how quickly they can get them) rather than whether or not they can actually play their instrument or have any experience in doing so. So long as someone can copy three pieces from a grade 8 CD; or do exactly what their teacher says on three pieces then that's great . Anyone working slowly (or even at a reasonable pace through the grades) and actually bothering to learn to play their insturment is stupid and not as tallented obviously.... If the ABRSM exams are doing this then they're probably doing more harm than good . I love musicmanNZ's comment in the other thread 'I suspect one could teach a monkey to play three pieces'....

There is no limit on the age for a dipABRSM performng candidate; the minimum age for a dipABRSM teaching candidate is 18. To be honest I'd seriously doubt that an 11 year old has the introspection, patience and even technical ability to teach anyway. I think you have been a victim of hyperbole on this one, or even a blatant lie, one cannot take the teaching dipABRSM until one is 18, if someone claims to have it at 11 this is blatantly false. Besides since it appears that teaching is all about entering people for exams an 11 year old would be useless as they couldn't enter anyone for exams for another 7 years: they might actually have to teach people to play .

I think if someone has got through dipABRSM they have at least done something, the quick study of a grade 6 piece, not to mention higher standards of playing, seems to really sort out the monkeys from the pianists !

If someone goes from grade 5 to grade 8 (or even grade 6) without learning any other repertoire inbetween then they were either already grade 8 standard when they did grade 5 (or grade 6 standard, in the case that it's grade 6) or they're not grade 8 standard when they do grade 8. I could 'pass grade 8' next summer if I wanted to, am I going to? No am I heck, I want grade 8 to mean something when I get it.

Personally if someone gets grade 8 particularly piano (I definitley except Katyjay's singing from this) in three years, call me cynical, but I don't think wow they're tallented; I just wonder when they're going to learn to play and if they will without the motivation of the exam. If they're then going to do a dip I think, oh well, at least the examiners will have a laugh in the quick study , harsh but all too true

Post deleted

Another pianist,

Have you ever considered that maybe some of those people actually DO bother to learn their instrument properly. Ive known people to get through all the grades in a few years and they didnt just copy three pieces from a cd, or learn by rote. They did learn plenty of other pieces besides their exam pieces. They were able to do the scales, aurals and sightreading as well as anyone else. Sightreading is actually one of their strong points
In fact they put alot of hard work into it, and still do.
Im sure some people reading that post would have been highly insulted

Okay, here we go with this one again (should have learnt from last time I said it ). First of all most of what I say applies to pianists, that is what the 'particularly piano' bit was supposed to be about. I did specifically make the exception of Katyjay as I know she has done things properly (heard her sing, spoken to her and I can tell quite clearly she knows what she's doing) and of course there will be other exceptions on other instruments. Andante is another exception, Andante I hope that wasn't what upset you , I merely forgot you at the time I know you're an amazing flautist having heard your recording and knowing that you have a dipABRSM which can't be done in the same way grade 8 can. Again it's clear from talking to you that you know your stuff.

Piano is, however, a very different beast to all of these other instruments, it's a lot easier to ignore bad tone on the piano (or train tone specifically for the odd piece here and there) as one of it's main difficulties is just the sheer co-ordination required to get the notes. Just playing the notes on piano can get one a lot further than just playing the notes (or trying to play the notes in the case of stringed instruments) on other instruments, especially if one is young and people are astounded by the 'technical ability' (or robotic programming) coming from someone so small. It's a lot easier to rote learn on piano without technique than on other instruments. As technique (although one can still do infinite work on it) is a smaller part of playing the piano than other instuments, particularly at the grade levels.

Chopet, I'd love to believe what you say that "considered that maybe some of those people actually DO bother to learn their instrument properly". I'm assuming that your post here does refer to one specific person not many, it starts of gramatically implying multiple 'people who have done it' and finishes by implying one person has done it 'Sightreading is actually one of their strong points'.

I do however, unfortunately, believe it's not really probable or possible that someone can really get to grade 8 piano standard from scratch within three years. There's just not the time to learn enough repertoire to become experienced with the time it would take to learn the exam pieces as well (just the sheer coordination involved), and that's assuming that one only does grade 8, if one does all the exams from 1 to 8 in a three year period one really doesn't have much, if any time, to do this. Maybe you think differently but I truely find it hard to comprehend that so many people would pick out the 'better pianist' as someone who's got to grade 8 within a short time rather than someone who has a vast experience of the repertoire and has played a lot of other things. Contrary to popular belief the best pianists are often those who learn good technique earlier on through appropriate repertoire rather than those who have gained the best certificate in the shortest time. What is a good pianist anyway? I went to a teacher's pupils' concert once where there were people playing whose 'abilities' ranged from grade 1 to grade 6. The best pianist there, in my opinion, you may think the grade 6 pianist well no (although he wasn't bad, a good second place to him), the grade 1 pianist, just passed grade 1 and playing repertoire around that level (including some grade 1 pieces) but such natural, musical, fluent and confident playing, this is what matters not how hard the piece is.

Let's assume for a second this is possible (I've never met or 'spoken' to anyone who I believe has done this on piano; this is different of course to people that think they've done it). Again I stress I'm talking about piano, then I'll say maybe 1 in every 1000 people who attempt this maybe 1 is successful, the remainder are split into two groups roughly half each (no pedantry about half people!) from experience of talking to those who have done this: one group the wise, musical ones who admit that they did it for a reason but admit now that they have to work on technique to get them up to actual grade 8 standard; and one group of people who are convinced that they must be better than anyone who's done grade 7, been playing for 10 years, and got 149 because they've got grade 8 and must be some sort of pianistic genius. There are two ways to feel good about one's playing: one is to be good at playing (although this often results in being critical of oneself); and one is not to have developed the musical ear yet to reaslise one's own faluts. I'm quite a believer in mathematics and probablility (I know these are just made up statistics but...) if someone says to me they have done this, and I'm not with them to verify it I have a tendency not to believe it, and think it's far more likely that they fit in to the 'think they're better than they are category' that everyone claiming this on the forum recently has been easily resigned to, either through earlier exam results or demonstrating their playing.

As for the CD copying comment not everyone will do this literally that was just something mentioned in another thread as a 'good technique' for getting higher marks in higher exams quickly, and will be a technique used by some. Others will simply do exactly what they're told by a teacher and spend a very long time working on the pieces for the grade in question. Maybe there are other techniques, these are not something I spend my time thinking up. The comment about not actually bothering whether people can play their instrument also comes form this thread in which it seemed there was no care about whether people could play at grade 8 standard; the only important point was to get them to have passed the grade 8 exam by any means necessary.

Sorry to anyone who is offended by my scepticism it's just that the difference between passing grade 8 and being grade 8 standard can be huge (and I'm not the only one to have said this) unfortunately quite often the link between thinking one is grade 8 standard and passing grade 8/being able to play the odd grade 8 piece is so strong that people lose sight of what being grade 8 standard is all about. No, not everyone who gets to grade 8 quickly has done so in a bad way (although I've yet to be convinced by a pianist who has done it) but most people have; others who are this standard on other instruments in this time are the exception, rather than the rule.

I'm just trying really to get to the point that learning an instrument is about just that; not about what piece of paper one has to 'prove' how good one is and how quickly one can obtain it. From reading others' posts I know that I am not alone in this belief.

Firstly,
I agree that learning an instrument is not just about 'what piece of paper one has to 'prove' how good one is and how quickly one can obtain it.' I know I would rather hear a grade 1 piece played well than hear someone struggle through something ridiculously difficult and get just the notes. I know there can be a huge difference between passing grade 8 and being grade 8 standard.
Say if one person lives for music and had wanted to take up an instrument for a very long time but couldnt because of certain circumstances. This person finally had an opportunity to do this and started piano lessons. From they day s/he started s/he really worked at it eventually ends up spending all his/her free time on music and improving their piano skills, really working at sightreading, playing a wide range of repertoire at each level before moving on. He/she could have spent hours at a time trying to perfect maybe just a section of a piece. This person might be very highly critical of their own playing and could think they're absolutely dreadful but after about three years sit grade 8 and pass with honours or something. Just curious, and dont take this the wrong way, but what would you say to that? I dont intend to offend or annoy anyone by the way and I respect your opinion. Im just making a point.

I'm pleased that we're in agreement on this . I'm certainly not trying to offend anyone also, I just like to be realistic about things (far easier when not done in person). For the next bit of course I am assuming this person is a pianist.


A bit of a misnomer this bit but sets the scene, could even be me in fact.


I just can't see where all the time to play all this varied repertoire can have come from, I know you say a lot of practise and all your spare time, a lot of people learn for years doing this, are they less talented if they do grade 8 later? Ultimatley with a smaller than usual amount of time either breadth or depth has to go, if the person has reached great depth (i.e. played harder repertoire) then they must have invested less time in broadening their repertoire (or spent little time working on technique and interpretation of what they have played) and on developing basic technique. I'd guess that a 'normal' grade 8 standard pianist wouldn't find it too easy to learn so many pieces in a year (I'm not going to hazard a guess at how many) so I can't see how this person even with a lot of practice, could study that much repertoire to cover all of the grades just because of getting over the co-ordination hurdles in the first place before even being able to look at technique and interpretation.


At this point I'd say the person has maybe begun to play pieces that are slightly too hard for them if they're spending hours at a time on little sections, okay if it's only the odd section this is normal, but if it's happening a lot all of the time it could be the first sign of rote learning.


Well to even take grade 8 they must feel that their playing in three years is good as the average person's is after nearly 9 so they can't feel that they're that bad, but in their situation I would think that their modesty is at least one of their strongest assets.

I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that in all probablility this person has passed grade 8 but has not yet reached grade 8 standard. There is only so much one can do, only so much repertoire one can cover in a short time, and only so much sighreading practise one can do. I really don't think that piano playing is something one can cram by just doing more and more hours of practice every day, to a certain extent this will have benifits but ulitmately the person needs time to develop as a musician, away from concentrating on the notes all of the time, and practice can become ineffective after a while without a good dose of sleep to back it up, surely you yourself must have experienced practising something over and over, being unable to do it; then going to bed, getting up in the morning and being able to do it, or at the very least being a lot better at it. I know at the Juliard they impose a 'maximum daily practice' limit on their students as the law of diminishing returns begins to kick in and they don't want to risk injury.

If I were with the person and could listen to them play, and in particular quick study, I could make a much more concrete judgement, (having said that why would they care about my judgement anyway?!) but from a hypothetical scenario I'd have to say that they probably hadn't reached grade 8 standard yet and I certainly wouldn't assume that they were 'more talented' than a pianist who had been playing for 9 years and had the same results, I'd assume the more experienced player to be better at this point, just by virtue of greater experience if nothing else.

Was refering to interpretation there and not necessarily just a few bars,and maybe not paying enough attention to technique at times, could be a page or two for long pieces. Should have made that clear.
As for practice, say this person had sacrificed schoolwork and other things in favour of staying home practicing, maybe overdoing the whole practice thing a bit. And im not saying those who take grade 8 later are less talented. I still think its possble, depending how its done, and on various circumstances.

Hey, AP. All this does me good. Turns out, I am not the only one to get involved in ferocious rows here. Thas is quite pleasant to discover.

Despite what I am about to post, I agree with everything you say. Except this.


It is. I know this because I taught one. He started with me at the comparatively late age of 10. Aged twelve and a half, he was already playing brilliantly much of the 'standard' grade 8 repertoire. He just never stopped improving. He never has since.

Now aged 30, he teaches at RNCM, has won prizes in international competitions and would play me off the stage before waking up.

Bit of an exception though, is Duncan

Steve

As I said above, over-doing practice can be counter-productive though.

Often people who are doing this much practice think they must be the only people doing this much practice. Many of the people who have already been playing for a while, though, will also have been doing this much practice - either right from the start, or picking up at some time when they decided to take playing more seriously.

I still remain unconvinced that "cram" practising on piano is a good technique for learning and will produce comparable results to taking two or three times as long, having more time to develop as a musician. I think, on other instruments, natural aptitude can play a bigger part, but on piano the sheer coordination needed necessitates the time to develop (although natural inaptitude on piano can be quite a hinderance). Even people with as much natural aptitude as Lang Lang and Kissin took 9 or 10 years to reach "concerto standard".

I seem to have the knack of doing this occasionally, I really don't mean to, honest!


Good for him OK, I guessed 1 in 1000 people; have you taught 1000 people yet? . I guess, perhaps, that you'd join me then in suspecting a random person met on the Internet is unlikely to be quite this prodigious (not a specific person, of course).

Hey, all I wanted to say is that it is possible. Wasnt necessarily refering to any particular person.

Funnily enough, neither do I. It just sort of happens. Something to do with sticking up for ourselves, possibly?


Funnily enough, I worked this out recently. In round figures, I have taught 50 pupils a week for 30 years. Assuming an average of 5 years teaching each pupil, that makes 250 pupils every 5 years, or 1500 pupils in my career.

Which means either: my figures are wide of their mark or; I am owed 50% of another Duncan Perhaps those near-Duncans add up to this


Suspicion duly joined

Steve

It's not really a good idea, though, for your average student to ditch his schoolwork and pin all his life's hopes on a 1-in-1000 (or 1-in-1500 ) chance. I'm sure Steve's student didn't turn up at Steve's door demanding he wanted to do grade 8 in 3 years' time (I'm sure he would have been severely reprimanded if he'd done this ). He rather just worked at his own pace, and this happened to occur in the natural process of learning.

Although, clearly, this person has achieved this it's not something that I believe everyone can achieve. Or even most people can achieve....

Basically, anyone who sets out and says 'Right, I'm going to be grade 8 standard in 3 years' has the wrong idea about learning music; anyone who sets out to say 'Right, I'm going to be as good a musician as I possibly can be' has the right idea (as long as they don't define 'good' as 'having grade 8' ). Yes, if it's for university entrance or something, this is a practical goal for a purpose, but people doing this appreciate that they will have to put in the work later to catch up with themselves.


Maybe. I hope I'm not on the moderation queue tomorrow .


Strange you should have worked that out recently, maybe the next Duncan comes in the next 500 - some time in the next 10 years maybe . Then again, maybe my made-up-statistics are slightly generous....


Thankyou, always good to have a voice of experience to confirm my thoughts .

Wasnt suggesting that at all . Just that maybe for this person the desire to improve their music was greater than their interest in their schoolwork and they could have occasionally spent what time should have been spent doing homework or studying, practicing instead.

edit: also, I just think that if any person really wanted to reach a high standard of playing they could very well do something like reach grade 8 standard in 3 years and still do things properly. Im not suggesting that anyone take up an instrument with the sole aim of doing just that, I know that would be wrong. I think its more to do with determination to be the best musician one can be, good teaching, practicing right, and other things.

AP, on thinking about it, 50 pupils every 5 years would mean I have taught 300 pupils - less than a third of a Duncan.

Neither figures make any sense whatsoever, so I must be starting to drivel.

Let's just agree they don't happen very often

And those that do exist will be far too busy to proclaim their abilities on AB forums.

I feel the hole I am digging for myself growing deeper by the word, so I am stopping for now.

G'night

No, sorry I still disagree I really don't think that everyone can get to grade 8 standard in three years, I simply don't believe it indeed I think there are only a handful of people in the world who can (and even they could have, if they wanted, learnt more at an earlier level); most people could probably pass grade 8 and half of those people could think they've got to grade 8 standard . Surely anyone wanting to be the best pianist ever and had such determination wouldn't even be bothered about speculating whether they could get to grade 8 in three years; they'd be more concerned about ensuring that they were developing a good sound technique on which to build and not leaving any gaps in their playing which would cause them trouble later on. If said good pianist took grade 6 if that's where they were in the course of learning after three years instead of grade 8 they would understand that didn't make them a 'worse' pianist than if they'd done grade 8, simply that they'd done the best thing for them and had a good solid technique to build on and would probably make genuine progress faster in the future.

It is false to assume that someone playing grade 8 level repertoire (or someone with grade 8) is a 'better pianist' than someone playing grade 6 level repertoire (or someone with grade 6). For a start if the first person scraped a pass and the second person got 140 I know who I'd be wanting to listen to (actually I'd listen to 140 at grade 1, in preference to most considerably lower marks elsewhere...). What grade one is on (or what level of repertoire one chooses to tackle) is entirely a matter of choice really: I know someone who took grade 1 gave up piano for over 10 years, came back to piano and crammed grade 8 in a year (the three pieces method, in a year, got a mark in the range 100-110, can't remember exactly) what does this person do now, well naturally he plays LRSM/FRSM standard repertoire (e.g. Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies, La Campanella, Goldberg Variations etc.) missing out the 'boring bits'. Fortunately he admits that he's not really up to playing these pieces (his sightreading is awful too) and that he's not going to become a good pianist through doing this, but he doesn't care: this is what he wants to do. That's absolutely fine if that's what he wants to do, and he's under no delusions about his abilities (he won't touch any diplomas as he says, and I quote 'I'm not good enough'), but for someone who actually wants to be a good pianist with good technique this would be a rather foolish approach. Anyone wanting to emulate this guy should of course do grade 8 as quickly as possible.

I'm under no illusions that there's not a single pianist in the world who has a lower grade than me as their last exam and is better than me; likewise if someone says they've done grade X in Y years (big X; small Y) I don't automatically assume that they're better than me.


How about we look at it a different way there are a lot more than 1000 pianists who want to be good for every pianist that is actually good enough to and makes it to music college professor. Music college professors are quite a rarity, and even most of them will have been playing more than three years before they passed grade 8 (even if that's because they started playing when they were 2 ).


Indeed, although I'd guess our hypothetical friend was hypothetically practising all the time that this discussion has been going on anyway .


, hope I'm not encouraging you to get into trouble .

Hey, I'm going to start hypothetical practising - I like the sound of it. Imagine, practise that was perfect every time.

I have just been doing some actual practising; it's been a b****r.

How about a Society For The Promulgation Of Hypothetical Practising. It would need a better title though; the acronym is nearly as bad as my practise.

Steve

a good idea I guess I should hypothetically get on with doing my hypothetical PhD now too, this hypothetical grade 8 business is taking up too much of my life . Then I'll have to do some real practising this evening, got that pesky 'easy' grade 5 coming up soon too , unless you think that hypothetical practise will be good enough here .

Sorry, getting a little silly now.

I never said they should speculate whether they could get to grade 8 in three years, I merely said they could do something like that without necesarily leaving huge gaps in their playing. I never said I presumed that a scraped pass at grade 8 automatically means one is a better pianist than the one who got distinction at grade 6.

Still don't agree with that statement though; most people are simply not capable of this. This is the same reason that most people work for 8/9 years not 3 to get to grade 8. The remainder of what I have said throughout this thread stands as my counter argument.


Good then we agree on something; so why would it ever be important that someone could be tackling grade 8 repertoire in this short length of time anyway that someone would want to try?

Could be any number of reasons. Might even be that they just like music, worked their a** off practicing and just reached that standard. In that case it still might be kinda downgrading to be told 'er, sure youre not really that standard are you', whatever way you look at it. Just as it might be for, say, a grade 5 clarinet student who may have been playing 5/6 years to be told 'youre not really grade 5 standard, you need to pull your socks up'. Not everyone who whizzed through grades like that will have just done the bare mimimum, practice 3 pieces (by rote or whatever) learn scales, bluff the aurals and sightreading. Also, in my experience not everyone who says theyve been practicing every day would actually have been doing that. I remember a few people at school years ago claiming they did half an hour a day on their instrument, and then later saying something like 'oh, im in trouble I havnt practiced in four months', or whatever. Of course im not saying its the same for everyone.

But 99.9999% of people working their a** off (as you so eloquently put it) to reach that standard (in piano of course) will not make it to that standard; however in my experience roughly 50% of those that try will at least believe that they've done it for at least some time. If they love music and want to be good at it the thing they should be most concerned about (especially at this early stage) is their basic technique, not how hard the pieces they choose to play are: anyone can choose to attempt any piece they like it's not a skill, playing it well and learning it efficiently are different matters.


No, indeed sometimes the truth is not nice to hear and in many situations it is not appropriate to state it; but do you not think that sometimes it's better to tell people, look it's not very likely that you'll make it to that standard and advise them the correct way to become a good pianist if that's what they want to do? Surely that's the most helpful thing. I would think it's more damaging to encourage someone and say 'yes if you do 8 hours a day of practising doing this you can make it' when this is not true? I know I'd be rather disappointed that someone had told me to do this as advice to become a good pianist. If you would prefer the advice to your hypothetical friend to be yes go for it, and then to see him in all but the remotest trace probability fail to be that standard and be either deluded or severely disappointed (possibly giving up because of this) then maybe you feel that's kinder; I however do not. Being in touch with reality is very important.


Simple maths will tell you less time = less experience, in three years there's little time to do much work and gain much experience at all, especially if one is trying to play harder things quickly. The less time one has had, the closer to the bare minimum practise one has done. Fine some people need less practise than others, but remembering the fact that most people need 8 years to do this it is very few people that will need only such a small amount of practise. Three years of cramming on piano is not equivalent to 8 years of reasonable work.

Indeed and in my experience a lot of these people who are 'in love' with their instrument and have to get there quickly for whatever reason aren't doing as much practise and as much more practise than everyone else as they think they are. As I say there are some incredibly talented musicians who will have been working for 8 years to get grade 8 and will have been practising a lot, not because they're 'not as good' as someone who has done it quickly, just because they have breadth of experience.

Anyone concerned about rushing up in standard rather than forming a good basic technique is not really interested in becoming a good pianist; or at least is misguided and is going about it the wrong way....

In three years, entered all the exams? One through eight? They wouldn't have much time would they? That's only nine sessions...I couldn't do that.

I have a scarily talented student - so talented that I think for her own good I should find her a teacher who would be better at teaching her than I am. She has been learning a year and we are preparing grade three level pieces. The only reason she didn't want to enter this session was because she has a violin exam (G4) and has just started high school. She's picked the scales up in a matter of weeks, her sight-readining is excellent and her (reluctant) singing is coming on now she opens her mouth! But I don't see her doing grade eight in 2 years. Even though she comes to a lesson after a week's practice and is playing pieces we sight-read the previous lesson very nearly perfectly!

What if I were to tell you I have seen it happen and I know for a fact that it is possible. It is possible to reach that standard, exams arent compulsory and it is possible to work through each grade properly and just get to that standard anyway, im not saying its easy but it is possible, with alot of practice,the right kind of practice, good teaching and other things. Surely not every teacher, adjudicator, examiner, musician to have heard this friend is wrong?

Most of us know someone like this. I have even taught one. They are as rare as hen's teeth. Grade 8 standard is a fanciful dream for most people in 10, never mind 3, years.

Steve

This debate is frustrating me slightly, instead of responding to any points that anyone makes you're just coming up with comments, which although are relevant to the topic aren't exactly continuing the discussion or addressing any of the points raised in any of the posts.


If someone, as for example, an experienced and well respected teacher of a few decades, comes along and tells me this has been done by one of the many, many students he has taught over a long period then yes I beilieve them: I believe that the person telling me knows what they're talking about (not to mention the achievements the person has made since that date). If, however, someone themself tells me that they have done it; or a musician of less experience (or someone who has only heard the person play for a short time i.e. in an exam) tells me that they know someone who has done it I'm much less likely to believe them; not because I think they're stupid, just because they themself don't have the experience to know what really it means to have done this (or haven't heard much more than this person's three showpieces). If a teacher tells me, oh yes a lot of my students have done this, I quickly set my opinion of their teaching to zero, realise they don't distinguish between stardard and passed exam, and exit the debate before I get in trouble (although this hasn't happened yet, I wonder if I could let that one go by ).

As I keep saying a lot of people think that they have done or can do this. Roughly 50% of these people have genuine reasons for doing it and admit they need to catch up with themselves later (needing an exam grade for university entrance being one of them); Roughly 50% of these people genuinely believe that they are the most talented/hardworking/whatever their reason pianist on the planet (or one of the most) and they're special and don't need anywhere near as much time as it normally takes people: the fact is that there are people in this world that are more tallented than them, have been working for much longer (and are doing the same amount of practisce), do love piano playing just as much (or more) and are better despite them thinking they've done the most practisce ever and thinking they're better. The remaining 0.0000000000001% (roughly zero percent, not even all of those who go on to gain professorships and win international competitions) have actually done this. Therefore if someone claims that they are genuinely grade 8 standard after three years (they're not in the genuine reason - did the exam for something but now have to catch up - bracket) so they're almost certainly in the category of thinks they're better than they are. Unfortunately, of course because they don't have the musicianship to understand that they're not that standard yet they'll sit here arguing until they're blue in the face that they are that good. Yes on other instruments where solid technique that requires a lot of time but not so much mental effort (I don't mean this makes it any easier, it's just different) to achieve the hard slog will pay off more but not on piano.

Besides I don't see Duncan around here feeling the need to tell us how wonderful he is, he's probably practising or teaching the piano, or maybe off winning an international competition somewhere now! I'd bet his proudest achievement is most likely a competition he's won or similar; getting to grade 8 standard in three years is a small part of what he has achieved.


It's easy to fool several examiners, adjudicators etc. of this by just having a good few robotically trained pieces and choosing the right moments to deploy them: after all the player is in control of when adjudications/exams/other assessments of their playing occur and can robotically train accordingly. As for teachers, well they're more often correect, and if an experienced teacher (of the person concerned, of course) says this (without there being any issues that they have to for the student to gain entry to something or to make themselves look good) then that is often the best judgement. However, some teachers (I've heard them here) advocate copying from the CD as a good way to pass exams, so I'm beginning to feel the world has more teachers that are willing to do anything to get candidates through exams and make them think they're progressing to show how good the teacher is (or in some cases people are forced to do this just to maintain a job). Fortunately, on this forum though, we are blessed with teachers of the good type who are concerned about teaching good technique .

The fact is that my instincts, insights into people's experiences, and a very experinced teacher all tell me the same thing: it is not possible for everyone to do this no matter how much practise they do or say that they have done; and it's very rare to find anyone who can do it (hence almost impossible to find someone here, if they were that good they wouldn't be on here debating their achievements). My experience of pianists who say that they have done this is actually entierly resolved into the issue that they haven't done it and they just think/thought that they have. In this world there are a lot more people who think they are great pianists in a short time; than there are actually people who are great pianists in a short time: indeed those who are really great often don't think they are. Frustratingly (well it is in these cases) for experienced pianists the ability to tell whether or not one is good comes with experience; those who have little experience and think they're good are more often just lacking the musicianship to tell that they're not.

Anyway, this is taking up too much of my life: I need to be practising too, if you want to believe it's possible and try to do it then it's you that will have to deal with the holes in your technique later, or live with the disappointment.

Yes, I know one or two people like this: it isn't impossible: it's just not at ALL common, (less so on the piano, I would say, thinking about the various talents I've met) and among myriad people claiming to have managed it here there and everywhere, common sense says that not all of them can be right... unless there's something about this board which attracts the real cream of the piano world... and I would guess that the real cream are probably too busy practising and giving recitals!

I have met plenty of extremely, ridiculously talented people, with grade 8 in several instruments, and very very musical and hard working, who still took 7, 8 or more to reach grade 8 standard on the piano rather than 3... (and I mean truly at that standard, not just coached through an exam; I'm not saying this is you, chopet, or your friend, I've never heard either of you play, but there are always a few in that boat). Yes, some can do it, no doubt, and do, and others do it on other instruments (I've seen this more often, though even then it's usually (by no means always) those learning a second or third instrument), but it's not that common, and not everyone has the ability to do it. Even those who seem to have exceptional talent have to work to achieve results like that; most of the people I know who've achieved high results quickly have had both talent and have worked like mad. There are certainly some (for example, me on the piano ) who would not reach the standard in that time even if it was all they did. Even one of the most talented people I know, and certainly among the best pianists I've ever met, who got through grade 8 piano within a year of starting formal lessons () would be the first to tell you know that he had to go and fill in the gaps later... he only did it because he needed the qualification for uni, and because he has exceptional natural talent on the piano and is very musical, so he managed it - he got the highest mark in the county that year - but it's a very exceptional achievement.

Even those who achieve it on other instruments, where it seems a more common occurrence for some reason, (I mean really being at that standard and not just being good at 3 pieces, which is a different kettle of fish) are usually in my (admittedly limited) experience the gifted ones, or very hard workers, quite often both, and often though not always it is not their first instrument so they have the benefit of musical background etc: I don't think it's necessarily something "anyone can do".

Firstly, Im not going to say much more here. I know what I want to say but I mustnt be putting it right. I hate arguing, debating etc. and was trying to avoid this. Its in my nature to try encourage people (although I rarely seem to get any myself... ) whatever way I can, whether it shows or not. Dunno if this will do anything, but, oh well............

I also like to be encouraging, the problem is this, blind encouragement without considering the consequences is often not the most helpful thing to do. If someone is standing at the edge of the cliff having invented a flying machine that they've worked very hard on as their hobby and are going to jump off because if a team of 50 engineers at Boeing, who've been doing this for years, has built something that can fly then they can surely the most kind thing to do is tell them they might not quite have the ability to do that despite what we might like to believe.

Perhaps a better analogy for piano playing is someone who has built a rickety tower (a poor technique foundation but got there quickly) and is about to climb to to the top to join all the other people who are enjoying sitting on their stable towers, we might find that they would be better advised to make a much firmer foundation before attempting to climb this tower and it collapsing. Although the piano situation is not admittedly so life and death if piano playing is important to people (and many of these people claim it's all they want to do in their life) then the advice we give them constructively to help them become better pianists is far more useful than oh, yes you go for it, why not learn the Liszt B Minor Sonata next!

I dare say my life would have been a lot easier in this thread if I'd simply said: yes, you go for it, you're great.... My encouragement to people in this situation is work hard to build a solid technical foundation and you can become good given time; not yes continue playing harder and harder pieces getting further out of your depth until you fall off your tower.

I think that we both agree that if we agree to disagree we can both get more piano practice done and become better pianists than we would be if we sat here. Good luck to you and your friend .